The new D800 has 36 MP.
Will this make any of my pictures look sharper when printed at normal sizes?

I understand that cropping to a DX size should be similar to a DX (D7000) camera and that for large prints ? > 30 inches you may want this.

I have printed up to 20 x 30 inches with my D7000 and the prints to my eye were superb, in fact superb enough to win a contest with > 300 entries.

At normal print sizes (11 X 15) can anyone tell if you shot it with a 12, 16 or 36 MP camera?

JohnE Nikon

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

It's not going to make a great difference to me, because I don't evaluate my images with a microscope, it may to some - and I'm not saying it's wrong to do that kind of analysis - some people need that detail. Product photographers, scientists, macro photographers, and landscape artists that "focus" on small detail (e.g. leaves, grasses, textures etc) may find some benefit. How much benefit depends largely on their clients.

I'm not buying the argument that memory is so cheap that 36MP doesn't matter in the long run. In fact memory, CF, SD, and HD can add up over time. If you take mostly production shots and need to save all your work, then you may choose to make that expenditure. I take largely snapshots, save a few, but it still adds up.

All that said, there's an awful lot on the D800 that does look "new" from a D700 perspective. It might be a worthy addition to a working kit. Should my work take me in a direction other than candid photography, family, friends, events, I might consider it. But for me the D700 is great, the D3s is on my "bucket list", and the D4 would be an option if I win the lottery.

A partial answerer to your question is what level of fine detail is in that 15" print. I once saw a macro shot of the lacing on a baseball that was taken with a MF camera and printed to about 9x12 on a metallic paper. It was outstanding. Most people walking past that print couldn't just go by, nearly everyone stopped and commented to those around them. That kind of stuff can make a difference. Those advertisements in glossy magazines that have so much micro detail, even if it's only in edge definition of the product, that the image pops off the page are another kind of usage. If you are into that stuff, then it can make a difference - lots of ways to use the 36MP pixels.

Best Regards,
Roger

I guess it depends, John. For me it's worth it, because I regularly blow up my images to 40" on the long side or more for clients. Right now we're working on a 12-foot image!

I use a Hasselblad H4D-50 for some of these huge images, but the D800 would seem to offer me some advantages in terms of lenses and portability. In fact, I just placed my order for one yesterday. At $3,200 for the D800E, it seems priced well to me. Time will tell.

Anyway, for those of you who are interested, I'm giving away a brand new ScotteVest on my blog site, along with a 15% discount to all ScotteVest products. You might want to check it out, fellow Nikonians! I like their products for general travel, but not for photography specifically. I write a monthly photo column for them, but I do not accept any money from them, so I'm free to critique their stuff.

Good luck in the contest if you enter.

Les

Nikonians Academy Instructor

Please visit my blog site.

Please visit my image web site.

>At normal print sizes (11 X 15) can anyone tell if you shot it
>with a 12, 16 or 36 MP camera?

Thanks a lot John for feeding my OCD, I spent more time than I would like to admit trying to determine the PPI resolution of inkjet printers!!! LOL

Seriously though, I am not the more experienced person here, but I agree that in general that answer will be; “it depends”.

In my inkjet insanity, I determined that inkjets really don’t print pixels, but dots. The stochastic dither pattern makes it difficult to determine a true PPI number. And the lighting conditions can drastically affect perceived image quality. I did a test by printing an 8.5x11 inch image at 120, 150, 240 and 300 PPI on my inkjet printer. In my examination and testing, under normal lighting that you would find in a home, gallery or museum, I reliably picked the 150PPI print as providing more detail than the 240 or 300 PPI print with the latter being a close tie for second. But if I used a magnifying glass I could then see that the 300PPI print really did have finer detail. That puzzled me for quite some time.

But outside in sunlight (direct or open shade) I reliable picked the 300 PPI print as providing more detail, with the 240 and 150 coming in as a close tie for second. And I was always able to pick the 120PPI print as being the lowest detail no matter the viewing conditions. Not to mention how differences in paper quality can also affect your results. Also at the time I only had 10MP images to test with, I wanted to repeat the test with my 16MP images to see how far I can push the PPI with my inkjet, but haven’t had the desire yet.

When it comes to dye-sub and traditional laser based wet processed printers, it depends on the printer and operator. For example my dye-sub prints at 314DPI. Being continuous tone, you can say each dot equates to one pixel. In that case any image larger than 314PPI will be a waste of resolution. But then it can only print up to 7.65 by 10 inch.

The laser based systems (also considered continuous tone) from my research utilize resolutions from 200 to 406DPI (depending on manufacture specs and settings chosen). And those manufactures state that their printers equate to a half-tone printer at 4000DPI.

So in the case of the wet process printing with a 15x11 print, 12MP would be about 283PPI, 16MP would be about 328PPI and the 36MP image would be 490PPI. So there would be room for improvement with the 12 and 16MP images in the upper ability of 406PPI, but the 36MP image would seem to exceed the printers’ capability, but also seems to be able to provide more detail under close scrutiny with the proper viewing conditions than a 12 or 16MP file could.

Not to mention that there is more to image quality than just PPI, and the newer generation of technology seems to be able to extract better image quality from sensor data than previous generations.

Bottom line is it’s my opinion that it’s really hard to give a definitive answer to this question, for there are too many variables in the equation. Now where did that bottle of ‘Jack’ go?? LOL

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Pete,

I'm interested in the same line of questioning but am not very technical and I don't know the math required to get the answers. And you seem to be pretty smart about these things so if you don't mind, let me come at this from a slightly different angle.

Pick your DPI, lets say 300 just for heck of it. Now lets shoot one of those weird diagrams that are used for testing lens resolution and focus.

And let's shoot it with a 12 MP FX body and a 36 MP FX body with the same lens.

And lets say the ink jet print size (Epson printer w/minimum ink droplet size of 3.5 picoliters), is no larger than 8x12.

My gut, (not very scientific), tells me that you would be hard pressed to see any difference. Could you see any difference at all? Even with a magnifying glass? My guess is only the most experienced eye would find a difference under a magnifying glass.

Please understand....This is a $8,000 question! ($4,000 for the D800 and accessories and an equal amount of money at the jewelry store for my wife. Kind of a tit for tat thing.)



Mark Sloane
Danville, CA

>Pete,
> And you seem to be pretty smart about these things
>so if you don't mind,

I wouldn’t say that, but thanks for considering it!!


>Pick your DPI, lets say 300 just for heck of it.

First we need to clarify, PPI is pixel resolution of the image file, and DPI is printer resolution which is not always directly relatable to image resolution.

Also my present stand is that inkjets don’t print pixels but dots, and the driver/rasterizing program will do its darnedest to translate whatever pixels you throw at it into dots. Also pixels are square, printer dots are round. If the PPI resolution is low enough (generally below 120PPI), then enough dots can be utilized to make the pixel appear square even though it’s made up of round dots. Increase the PPI resolution and the pixel starts to take the shape of an over-stuffed cardboard box and the squareness diminishes. Increase it far enough and the pixel does not even come close to resembling anything other than a collection of a few dots.

I never did a direct comparison of different resolution cameras because I don’t have access to more than one (that would really make a good comparison that is). My experimentation was more to try and determine what the native pixel resolution inkjet printers would work at (I believe that screen line pair or LP/I would be the proper term). With the limited 10MP and 8.5x11 prints I was limited to 386PPI, but down-sampled my largest test image to 300PPI or 8.4MP. The reasoning behind that is that there is a belief that you can obtain better image quality if your PPI is evenly divisible into the printers DPI.

I also realize this is often a hotly debated topic, with no definitive information one way or the other; just empirical testing through visual inspection, not hard data (quite frankly because the manufactures of inkjets refuse to release the information needed).

I would agree that for the average viewer, under certain circumstances, you probably would be hard pressed to tell the difference between say a 12 or 14MP image. But I’m inclined to believe that going from 12 to 36 should provide an improvement which could be discernable under very good quality viewing conditions.

This is starting to get off topic I guess so I will try to keep my insanity to a minimum. But I hope this helps; and now I really need to find that bottle of “Jack”!! LOL


Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks Pete,

And as a one who enjoys JD as well, I have become a recent convert to Gentleman Jack. If you haven't tried it, do yourself a favor and buy a bottle!

Thanks again....Mark



Mark Sloane
Danville, CA

I see the D800 as a very specialized camera, and if your game is printing still images at sizes like 11x15" then it's simply not for you. Assuming this means you use a 13" printer and can therefore print up to 12x18", let me say I can't tell a difference at that size between files from my old 6MP D50, either of my 12MP D300s, or my 16MP D7000. So my answer to your print size is no; no reason at all to spring for a D800.

Consider most printers native resolution is 300dpi (or in the case of Epson, 360dpi). That means uncropped, assuming you've got enough acuity from your lens and your technique is good enough to take advantage of all those pixels, then native print size out of 36MP at 300ppi is about 16x24". Anything less than that means either you or your print driver will downsample the image, discarding pixels in the process. Now, that may not be a bad thing, because as pixels are averaged together, noise will be reduced, and pre-reduction sharpening will be more acute, but given the noise credentials of e.g. the D700 (and the certain upcoming bargains in the used market) I don't see why you'd go to D800 if lowering noise by downsampling to small prints was your goal.

For me, I've been using a 44" printer and printing up to 40x60" (and even longer for panos). I'll often shoot multiple images across with my camera in a vertical orientation, then stitch them together to simulate a higher resolution. For me, if the D800 can allow me to eliminate that, then I'll be very happy with 36MP. Storage space is completely a non-issue for me.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Great post Larry and very helpful. I am a resolution junkie so I am curious about these new bodies.

The overwhelming majority of my prints are 6x9. I use only prime lenses, always use a tripod w/Mup and remote trigger and print 99% B&W.

I went from a D70 to a D200, to a D300, to a D700 and each move up was so worth it.

But in this case, I think you might be right and leave the D800 to those making large prints.

Mark Sloane
Danville, CA

Great post Larry.

Thanks,

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

+1 Great post. I'm excited about the D800's potential. I'll be able to use both cards from my D7000 and the CF cards I have lying around from my D200.

dgs

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

One of the things that happens with a 36 MP file that is downsized to 11x15 is that noise virtually disappears. At low ISO levels, color rendition and dynamic range of the D800 is significantly better than other cameras.

You may not be able to spot why there is a difference, but my guess is you would pick the D800 print over a D300 print most of the time. I won't be surprised if you can see a difference in a 900 x 600 pixel web post.

I hope to be able to test the idea soon.


Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Who wants 36 MP?

Not me!

North East Wedding Photographer

I am pretty stressed about this 36MP camera ! I did pre order it the day it was announced because I HAVE to get a FX camera before wedding season starts this year. I am stressed that I made the wrong decision and that I would regret getting the D800 over the D4. If I had the money I would buy both, the D4 as my main body and the D800 as secondary but I can only afford one of them to become my primary and a D300 as a secondary.

Take a look at this blog and rest easy. You'll be just fine.

http://cmphotography.com/blog.cfm


Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Eric,

I know this is off topic but I went to cmphotography as per your post was completely blown away by Cliffs wedding portfolio.

He is absolutely brilliant! Thank you for the link to his blog on the D800........Mark

Mark Sloane
Danville, CA

Eric, thanks for the link. Info is terrific.

>"I I am stressed that I made the wrong decision and that I would regret getting the
>D800 over the D4."

I don't mean to add to your stress but if you shoot weddings and can afford the D4, why didn't you buy that instead of the D800? The D800 is going to be relatively slow and eat up memory cards; two things you don't want when shooting on-the-go, like at a wedding. I also don't see how 36MP is going to be a significant advantage to you, unless clients want prints the size of a billboard. My recommendation is cancel the D800 order and grab the D4. It seems like a MUCH better choice, and a camera you'll have no regrets owning.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I do.

JDT

>The new D800 has 36 MP.

Right now, I'd take 100!

Trying to do a retouch on a model I worked with two days ago. Shot full body, and am trying to clean up her eyes. Shot on the D3s with 12MP and it's a pixelated mess.

My D800 can't come fast enough.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have found with the V1 that 10mp is usually enough.
However, there are two times when I will really use all 36 MegaPixels.
1. Group shots.
2. Grand Canyon and similar Landscapes.

Most of the time I expect to shoot 4x5 stills.
I will have to experiment to figure out whether I want Large Fine JPEGs
but probably something smaller for Event Photography.

This camera is even going to make shooting in the DX crop nice.
I do not plan on using any DX lens except maybe the 35mm f/1.8 when shooting Movies.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I do not plan on using any DX lens except maybe the 35mm f/1.8
>when shooting Movies.

Yes this ability to shoot DX lenses for video on the D4/D800 is a great new feature! In theory there will be no IQ penalty whatsoever in the resulting video. Hmm I can even shoot my 10.5 fish and get full benefit of its image projection. Or of course shooting an FX lens at two different FOV for video purposes (3 different FOV on the D4) gives additional flexibility.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

>
Hmm I can even shoot my
>10.5 fish and get full benefit of its image projection.
>
>Best regards, SteveK
>
I wonder how a movie in front of one of Monterey Bay's Aquariums would turn out if I used my Sigma 8mm FX lens at FullFrame 1080P and 30fps?
I could take it in front of one of the round port windows.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

For me the 36 MP just delivers a larger canvas to crop and post process details . I could see
shooting DX / or lower res. for normal images and saving the 36 MP shots as needed . You won't need it for picnic photos / squirrels in the park . ... Damn

The 10.5 on video would be strange .

Hans K.

My Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery. nikonus@nikonians.org

I do. Don't why it just seems like a good idea

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Obviously, 36 mps will have some specialized uses and advantages in the commercial world, super enlarged display uses, and those who make it a practice to crop a lot.

But, not everyone should be worrying. I can make outstanding gallery-sized prints with my D700 and it's certainly adequate for my wedding and event shooting work. Even getting published in standard magazine-size formats poses no problem.

So, the short of it is that some will definitely benefit from the increased resolution, while many, like myself, should be able to continue just fine with our current cameras and totally serve the needs of their clients.

To answer your last question, at 11x15 size, I don't see any differences between the different resolutions--all other things being equal. By that I mean that resolution is only one factor to the ultimate quality and look of the print. In the real world,the photographer's skill with the camera and lens, exposure, and printing ability are not equal among its many practitioners. I've seen incredible enlarged printed images that came from a 10mp camera and I've seen poor quality print displays that came from newer and higher mp cameras.

Ultimately, higher resolution will be beneficial in the right hands and for certain applications. It will be wasted in other situations. Regardless of use and skill, if you absolutely have to have the newest and most advanced camera, and can afford it, more power to you.

Dan L.
http://www.danlarussophotography.com/

Like many others, I was not a fan of the more pixels are better school. But a close look at the other specifications plus new features makes me have a second look at the D800. Also a look at the quality of the images posted from the D800 are spectacular. The clarity of the image and the tonal range appear exceptional. Now of course there are dual cards, the Exspeed 3 processor, better matrix metering and now it's not a case of replacing the D700 but getting another camera to use side by side with the D800.

My heart says yes to a new D800, but my head, bank balance and wife say no...for the moment

GH

I shoot weddings and have just preordered a D800. I think it will be a fantastic new tool for me.

There can never be too much detail in the portraits and formals.

However, the really big news is in cropping ability!

I shoot with a Gary Fong LS and don't like to use the vertical camera orientation very often, because it throws a flash shadow off to the right. Instead, I shoot in camera horizontal orientation and crop the image to vertical later. With 36 MP, I will still be able to make large prints when I do that. Sometimes with my D3, the resolution was not high enough.

As a professional, when shooting quickly, it is far more important to get the shot than to worry about how well it is framed. This means you use a wider than required focal length to be sure to get everything, and crop it to the right framing later. A good example is the bouquet toss at a wedding. You use a wide focal length to be sure the bouquet ends up in the picture and crop it correctly later. The 36MP D800 should leave you with more than enough resolution for a large print.

And the high resolution allows you to crop a candid face out of a crowd or group and make a sharp 8x10 from it. This need comes up over and over at my weddings. Someone in the crowd will have a great expression, but with my D3, there is often not enough resolution for a sharp 8x10 print.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

>I shoot with a Gary Fong LS and don't like to use the vertical
>camera orientation very often, because it throws a flash
>shadow off to the right. Instead, I shoot in camera horizontal
>orientation and crop the image to vertical later. With 36 MP,
>I will still be able to make large prints when I do that.

That's an interesting thought, Russ

For portraits, it would be great if the D800 had the option of a 5x4 vertical crop mode...!

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Hi:

I am very impressed with the D800/D800E. It far exceeded my expectations:

1. 36 MP (same pixel density as the D7000.)
2. A truly remarkable camera at ~ $3,000 (very reasonably priced, imho.)
3. 16MP in DX mode or 36 MP in FX mode or a DX and FX camera for the price of one.
4. With or without AA Filter and only $300 more.
5. An HDR feature. I believe that some of the sample photos were shot in the “HDR mode” – very impressive!

All I have to do is sell the D700 and X1 and presto, D800! Unfortunately, it is not for me. I only publish on the web and sometimes do print, but never large enough to necessitate so much resolution. I really do not need to deal with the huge files that a 36MP camera would produce. I use LR and CS5 using the Nik plugins. Therefore, I have both the DNG and TIFF files and they are huge enough with a 12MP camera! To me, half the fun is the post-processing.

I also made the D7000 my main camera because the form factor of the D80/D90/D7000 has always been my favorite. I use the D700 as my low-light more demanding camera. However, just because a camera is not the best fit for me, it does not mean I’m not impressed by it – great camera, imho.

Best regards,

Hektor

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

How many lenses do you need? - Just one more!

The D4 and D800 are very similar cameras, the D800 wont be nearly as good as the D4 in low light and 10fps vs 4 fps but the rest of the specs are very very similar. I am pretty sure I do not need a 36mp camera and in wedding photos taken in the park I am sure it will be almost impossible to tell 8x10 photos apart from each other ..... I would buy the D4 in a heart beat if it was only $1500 more than the D800, but is the D4 really worth DOUBLE the price of the D800 ? ( from a wedding photographers view)

>I am pretty sure
>I do not need a 36mp camera and in wedding photos taken in the
>park I am sure it will be almost impossible to tell 8x10
>photos apart from each other .....

Agreed, but can you crop out Uncle Joe's face in the crowd of 50 people and make a high resolution 8x10 of it?

Cropping is where the big advantage of the D800 is.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

If I can afford it I will take delivery of the D4.
I only have $3,000 now and delivery may be next week.

For my use 16mp is a huge upgrade from 12.
And I sure could use double the High ISO of the D800

Bottom line might be this.
Can I make an extra $3,000 selling pictures that were taken above 6400 ISO next year or even two.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I want 36 MP! Downsizing it for normal size pictures will eliminate most of the noise on top of the fact that it probably has less noise than my D200. Couple this with my longest lens being a 300/4 AFS with a 1.4TCE, I can crop it to be equal to my D200 10 mp size and have it be like using the D200 with an even longer lens than I have now.

Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants.

I don't see a need for it yet. To me, the flagship D4 at twice the price and half the megapixels speaks volumes. Maybe when the price drops this autumn and user reports indicate great benefits, I might go for it.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

I don't need it I want it. Thinking about going FX and buy a D700. But the price difference between d800 and a new d700 is very small considering mp, 100% viewfinder, video, etc. So, I do want one. Another option of course is a used d700.

So out of curiosity, what is the file size of a 36MP RAW exposure?

----------------------------------------
Stephan P.
Langley, B.C. Canada

D90 w/ 18-55 VR2

I believe the D800 in 14-bit Uncompressed NEF will produce an image file of around 75MB.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

My Tandy's first hard drive was 20MB and i thought I was cooking with gas!

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

Ah, memories!

When I started work in the IT department one of the largest banks in the UK back in 1973, their biggest IBM mainframe computer had a "huge" 640K bytes of memory - less than 1GB. And their in-branch computers (like a desktop PC today) used a hard disk instead of RAM, with a total capacity of 2K...! Writing a program to fit in that was a challenge

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Hi:

Talking about memories! Our IBM Mainframe had an unbelievable and mind blowing (well, at the time – late 70’s) one GB of internal memory … Virtual! It did not physically have 1 GB, it was like having one. I just replaced my 10.1 netbook with a 15.6 laptop with 6 GB of RAM installed and 2.3 GHz dual-core with 64-bit Windows . However, we had an average of ~ 2,500 users connected at the same time and the response time was ~ 1 to 2 seconds. If I connect 2,500 users to my laptop, the response time might be ~ 1 to 2 weeks .

Best regards,

Hektor

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

How many lenses do you need? - Just one more!

I once saw a "big" IBM Hard Disk the size of a wheelbarrow tire that was only a few MegaBytes.

Around 1999 (can't remember the date) I used to spend more for Memory than my PCs because of the Photo processing requirements.
It was going for $30 a megabyte then and shortly rose to $40 before the rapid decent.

That may have been part of the reason the first Kodak Professional Cameras cost $43,000.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ah memory.

Voyager is flying out there in exploring the universe with ... 64Kbytes of RAM.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I don't need it I want it. Thinking about going FX and buy a
>D700. But the price difference between d800 and a new d700 is
>very small considering mp, 100% viewfinder, video, etc. So, I
>do want one. Another option of course is a used d700.

I want to go FX too, been using my D300 since it came out.
I've come close to buying a D700 several times, but never did. Still considering one, or even a D3s, while also contemplating a D800.
I've never used a D3s, but the IQ I see from it always impresses me.
I'd like to see some landscape samples from the D800 when they hit the streets.

Excellent discussion.

I would like to know the advantages/disadvantages of the D800 with landscapes, vintage cars, macro-photography, and low-light/night photography, my interests. Video is not a factor for me and never will be.

The photos on the wedding photographer's blog are great especially the sharpening done on the baby's/parent's finger portrait. I was having a hard time detecting noise on the portrait shot at ISO 6400.

I have been saving for a D700 and now there's a D4, a D800, and a D800E to choose from. This will have to be my last purchase as I will be retiring within 18 months.

Mp

Visit my Nikonians gallery.